Re: [gentoo-user] www-client/chromium-63.0.3239.132

On Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 12:04 PM, Mick wrote: > > On my old i7 laptop it eats up all 4G of RAM and 4G of swap before it conks > out. So, I dropped the jobs to 3 and --load-average to 2, added a swapfile to > increase disk space and it now builds in around 13 hours. > >

Re: [gentoo-user] www-client/chromium-63.0.3239.132

On Friday, 19 January 2018 13:29:51 GMT Rich Freeman wrote: > On Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 12:26 AM, victor romanchuk wrote: > > local:jumbo-build:www-client/chromium: Combine source files to speed up > > build process.> > > setting that significantly speeds up emerge time

Re: [gentoo-user] www-client/chromium-63.0.3239.132

On Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 12:26 AM, victor romanchuk wrote: > local:jumbo-build:www-client/chromium: Combine source files to speed up > build process. > > setting that significantly speeds up emerge time (tried it twice; the second > attempt had the flag set) > > $ qlop -gHv

[gentoo-user] www-client/chromium-63.0.3239.132

just noticed new use flag in recent stable chromium ebuild: $ quse -D jumbo-build  local:jumbo-build:www-client/chromium: Combine source files to speed up build process. setting that significantly speeds up emerge time (tried it twice; the second attempt had the flag set) $ qlop -gHv -d `date

Re: [gentoo-user] www-client/chromium

on 08/05/2011 08:44 AM Mick wrote the following: On Friday 05 Aug 2011 06:14:37 Adam Carter wrote: The noscript firefox addon gives significant protection with only a little inconvenience. By little inconvenience you mean that most webpages will not show up properly? These days any page

Re: [gentoo-user] www-client/chromium

2011/8/5 Matthew Finkel matthew.fin...@gmail.com: On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 12:05 AM, Thanasis thana...@asyr.hopto.org wrote: I noticed that chromium's code has a lot of vulnerabilities. https://bugs.gentoo.org/buglist.cgi?quicksearch=www-client%2Fchromium I suppose this is why we see so often

Re: [gentoo-user] www-client/chromium

On Fri, 5 Aug 2011 15:14:37 +1000, Adam Carter wrote: The noscript firefox addon gives significant protection with only a little inconvenience. There was no equivalent for chromium last time I checked, and it still doesn't have a master password to protect saved webform passwords Chromium

Re: [gentoo-user] www-client/chromium

2011/8/5 Jesús J. Guerrero Botella jesus.guerrero.bote...@gmail.com 2011/8/5 Matthew Finkel matthew.fin...@gmail.com: On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 12:05 AM, Thanasis thana...@asyr.hopto.org wrote: I noticed that chromium's code has a lot of vulnerabilities.

[gentoo-user] www-client/chromium

I noticed that chromium's code has a lot of vulnerabilities. https://bugs.gentoo.org/buglist.cgi?quicksearch=www-client%2Fchromium I suppose this is why we see so often version upgrades of it (and it's not a small app to build). Why is its code so, should I say prone to bugs, compared to other

Re: [gentoo-user] www-client/chromium

On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 12:05 AM, Thanasis thana...@asyr.hopto.org wrote: I noticed that chromium's code has a lot of vulnerabilities. https://bugs.gentoo.org/buglist.cgi?quicksearch=www-client%2Fchromium I suppose this is why we see so often version upgrades of it (and it's not a small app to

Re: [gentoo-user] www-client/chromium

On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 2:05 PM, Thanasis thana...@asyr.hopto.org wrote: I noticed that chromium's code has a lot of vulnerabilities. https://bugs.gentoo.org/buglist.cgi?quicksearch=www-client%2Fchromium I suppose this is why we see so often version upgrades of it (and it's not a small app to

Re: [gentoo-user] www-client/chromium

On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 12:23 AM, Adam Carter adamcart...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 2:05 PM, Thanasis thana...@asyr.hopto.org wrote: I noticed that chromium's code has a lot of vulnerabilities. https://bugs.gentoo.org/buglist.cgi?quicksearch=www-client%2Fchromium I suppose this is

Re: [gentoo-user] www-client/chromium

On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 12:36 AM, Michael Mol mike...@gmail.com wrote: At least one of the multiple vulnerabilities bugs linked to a Chrome update notice which didn't list any vulnerabilities. (Well, except a Flash update, which I didn't dig into) -- :wq M Flash. Now there is a nice

Re: [gentoo-user] www-client/chromium

on 08/05/2011 07:23 AM Adam Carter wrote the following: On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 2:05 PM, Thanasis thana...@asyr.hopto.org wrote: I noticed that chromium's code has a lot of vulnerabilities. https://bugs.gentoo.org/buglist.cgi?quicksearch=www-client%2Fchromium I suppose this is why we see so

Re: [gentoo-user] www-client/chromium

You've made an assumption there. Maybe my assumption isn't true, after all seeing the list for firefox that Matthew pointed to, although with firefox we don't see upgrades so often, I guess we should *not* feel more secure with it... The noscript firefox addon gives significant protection

Re: [gentoo-user] www-client/chromium

On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 1:14 AM, Adam Carter adamcart...@gmail.com wrote: You've made an assumption there. Maybe my assumption isn't true, after all seeing the list for firefox that Matthew pointed to, although with firefox we don't see upgrades so often, I guess we should *not* feel

Re: [gentoo-user] www-client/chromium

On Friday 05 Aug 2011 06:14:37 Adam Carter wrote: You've made an assumption there. Maybe my assumption isn't true, after all seeing the list for firefox that Matthew pointed to, although with firefox we don't see upgrades so often, I guess we should *not* feel more secure with it...

Re: [gentoo-user] =www-client/chromium-6.0.472.33 and h264

On 17 August 2010 23:42, Andy Wilkinson drukar...@gmail.com wrote: I have tried 490, and it has the same problem: html5test.com reports no h264 support, and non-webm, html5 youtube videos don't work. I'll continue trying successive builds as they're posted... maybe 490 doesn't have that

Re: [gentoo-user] =www-client/chromium-6.0.472.33 and h264

On 17 August 2010 04:26, Andy Wilkinson drukar...@gmail.com wrote: I've noticed that ebuilds of chromium at and later than 6.0.472.33 no longer use the system-provided ffmpeg, and seem to lose support for h264 videos (test any non-webm, html5 video at youtube; it will never load). I've

Re: [gentoo-user] =www-client/chromium-6.0.472.33 and h264

On 08/17/2010 04:54 AM, Nganon wrote: On 17 August 2010 04:26, Andy Wilkinson drukar...@gmail.com mailto:drukar...@gmail.com wrote: I've noticed that ebuilds of chromium at and later than 6.0.472.33 no longer use the system-provided ffmpeg, and seem to lose support for h264

Re: [gentoo-user] =www-client/chromium-6.0.472.33 and h264

On 17 August 2010 19:49, Andy Wilkinson drukar...@gmail.com wrote: Thanks for the info. That doesn't entirely answer my question, though... shouldn't chromium's bundled ffmpeg have h264 support? Google's youtube.com/html5 page suggests that Chrome (and thus chromium?) supports h264. Is

Re: [gentoo-user] =www-client/chromium-6.0.472.33 and h264

On 08/17/2010 10:58 AM, Nganon wrote: On 17 August 2010 19:49, Andy Wilkinson drukar...@gmail.com mailto:drukar...@gmail.com wrote: Thanks for the info. That doesn't entirely answer my question, though... shouldn't chromium's bundled ffmpeg have h264 support? Google's

[gentoo-user] =www-client/chromium-6.0.472.33 and h264

I've noticed that ebuilds of chromium at and later than 6.0.472.33 no longer use the system-provided ffmpeg, and seem to lose support for h264 videos (test any non-webm, html5 video at youtube; it will never load). I've tried doctoring the ebuild to use the system-provided ffmpeg, which does not